UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION

WAKILII BROWN, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) 1:21-cv-00504-LSC ) ) JOHN Q. HAMM, ) Commissioner, Alabama ) Department of Corrections, ) ) Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER

I. Introduction Currently pending before the Court is Petitioner, Wakilii Brown’s, Motion to Alter or Amend this Court’s Memorandum of Opinion and Order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief from his state court conviction for capital murder and death sentence pursuant to

. (Doc. 41.) For the reasons that follow, the motion is due to be denied. II. Standard of Review Brown’s motion is timely filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which allows a party to file a motion to amend or alter the judgment of a court with 28 days after entry of that judgment, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Rule 59 “was adopted to ‘mak[e] clear that the district court possesses the power’ to rectify its own mistakes in the period immediately following the entry of judgment.” White v. New Hampshire Dep’t of Employment Sec.,

(1982). “The decision to

alter or amend a judgment is committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” Drago v. Jenne,

(11th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). “The only grounds for granting [a Rule 59] motion are newly-discovered evidence or manifest

errors of law or fact.” Arthur v. King,

(11th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks and internal brackets omitted). A manifest error of law is the “disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent.” Oto v. Metro. Life Ins.,

(7th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks

omitted). “A Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” King,

(quotation marks and internal brackets omitted).

III. Discussion Brown contends that the Court’s judgment contains manifest errors of law and fact with regard to its resolution of several of his claims. Brown also contends that even if this Court declines to reconsider its judgment and grant habeas relief, it

should at the least grant a certificate of appealability. This Court has thoroughly reviewed Brown’s arguments, but the Court finds that his motion is an attempt to relitigate arguments that the Court has already

considered and addressed in its Memorandum of Opinion and Order denying his petition. The Court thus concludes that these arguments do not justify altering or amending the Court’s judgment or granting a certificate of appealability. IV. Conclusion Having considered Brown’s arguments and for the above reasons, it is ordered that Brown’s motion to alter or amend the judgment (doc. 41) is hereby DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED on December 19, 2024.

L. Scott United States District Judge 160704